Explore Everyday Health

Save

10 Ways to Build the Perfect Presidential Candidate

When you head to the polls in November to cast your vote for president, you’ll likely be thinking of what the candidates said during the last debate, where they stand on health care, or whether they plan to raise your taxes. You probably won’t waste time comparing their heights or wondering which hand they use to sign checks — but that doesn’t mean you haven’t noticed or been influenced by it.

Experts suggest that 60 to 70 percent of all communication occurs through nonverbal behavior, or body language, meaning that what a candidate does, wears, or looks like is just as important as what he (or she) says. Indeed, a growing crop of research indicates that whether we’re aware of it or not, we pick up on hundreds of emotional and psychological cues just by glancing at someone. Even something as simple and seemingly insignificant as the shape of a person’s jawline sends a signal to our brains about his or her competence and reliability.

Here, a look at 10 other little things that may affect who we’ll elect this fall.

Low Voices = High Votes

Darth Vader for president? He certainly has the voice for it. According to a recent study published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, voters are more likely to cast their ballots for a candidate with a Barry White baritone than a tinny tenor. (Sorry, David Beckham.) Researchers asked participants to listen to two manipulated recordings (one high and one low) of nine U.S. presidents and then assess the attractiveness, intelligence, and trustworthiness of the speakers. Lower-pitched voices won in every category — except, tellingly, “most likely to be involved in a government scandal,” the only negative attribute on the list.

Previous research has shown a similar bias toward basses. One study, from the University of Aberdeen in the U.K., found that women were more likely to remember something when it was told to them in a deep voice. (Men’s memories, apparently, are not likewise affected.) Given that politicians rely heavily on speeches and debates to make an impression on voters, this pitch sensitivity could be an asset for husky sounding presidential hopefuls — that is, assuming the impression they’re making is a good one.

Getty Images

Voters Lean Left (Handed, That Is)

George H.W. Bush may have swung to the right politically, but physically, he was a leftie all the way. And he’s not the only southpaw in the bunch. In fact, left-handers have been surprisingly well represented in the White House, especially considering that they make up only 10 percent of the general population. Counting Ronald Reagan, who was rumored to be ambidextrous, five of our last seven POTUSes have been lefties — including our current commander-in-chief, Barack Obama.

Coincidence? Maybe. But Dutch researchers think otherwise. According to a study from the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, lefties may have the upper hand in modern-day politics. Scientists claim that most people associate right-handed gestures with good things and left-handed gestures with bad things. (This bias is seen elsewhere, too, in phrases like “the right answer” or “two left feet.”) Contrary to what you might think, however, this actually works in favor of left-handed candidates, since, during a debate or speech, any gestures made with their dominant hand appear to be waving toward the right or “good” side of our TV screen. It’s just a theory, of course, but given that southpaws account for 50 percent of the 10 presidents who came to power after the first televised debate in 1960, it’s not entirely out of left field.

Leadership Is a Tall Order

Research shows that taller people are happier, have more kids and higher-paying jobs, perform better on cognitive tests, and are more attractive to the opposite sex than their vertically-challenged peers. They also win more elections. Data from the presidential height index show that the taller candidate has prevailed in 58 percent of national races since 1789 — and in 62 percent since the first televised debate.

According to a study published in Social Science Quarterly, this may be because voters unconsciously associate height with leadership abilities. Researchers at Texas Tech University asked more than 450 college students to describe and draw their “ideal national leader” alongside a “typical citizen.” Nearly two-thirds of the participants drew a taller leader, which experts say could be symbolic of a “caveman” bias. “Our ancestors lived in groups that were constantly engaged in conflicts that were resolved through physical violence,” explained study author Gregg R. Murray, PhD, an assistant professor of political science at Texas Tech. “If you are in a group and the enemy hordes are coming over the hill, what you want them to see is the big person out front so they know they face a tough battle.”

If that’s true, the Republicans’ best bet against the 6-foot-1 Obama is either Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum, both of whom clock in at over 6 feet 2. (Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul are estimated to be 6 feet and 5 feet 10, respectively.)

You're Never Fully Dressed Without a Smile

They say that of all the things you wear, your expression is the most important — and if past elections are any indication, this is especially true for politicians. A look at the eight most recent national races shows that a candidate’s smile may be one of the most telling predictors of his or her shot at the White House.

Consider, for example, Obama vs. McCain, Bush vs. Kerry, and Clinton vs. Dole. In each case, the person who projected a more genuinely warm and cheery self-image on the campaign trail came out on top.

We’re not suggesting that you can win the presidency simply by flashing your pearly whites, but if you’re thinking of running for office, putting on a happy face every once in a while certainly can’t hurt — and may even help. Researchers from Australia and Japan found that candidates with a greater “smile index” (defined as the authenticity of one’s smile, measured by custom facial-recognition software) received a greater share of the vote in national elections — in some cases up to 5.2 percent more, which is comparable to an incumbency advantage. That should give the presidential hopefuls something to grin about.

Fashion Has a Function

Second to a smile, the most important thing a candidate wears could be his necktie. In the past, at least, wannabe commanders-in-chief have traditionally stuck to one of two colors, red or blue, usually over a crisp white shirt. Many people believe this choice is symbolic of either political affiliation or national pride, but experts say it goes beyond party lines and patriotism. According to a study from the University of British Columbia, exposure to red and blue can actually enhance cognitive ability and receptivity to advertising — which is at least half the job of running for office. Red, in particular, heightens viewers' attention to detail and boosts memory recall; blue appeals to people's creativity and makes them feel calm and open-minded.

So which is better? Fashion experts and campaign advisers say it depends on both your message and your personality. Red, while often associated with power and victory, could also symbolize ego or the need to be the center of attention, so if politicos accused of narcissism or pomposity should stay clear. Blue, conversely, is safe but not as strong — most people have positive associations with it, but it makes less of a statement.

Women's fashion is another matter entirely, say image consultants like Christina Logothetis, who writes the blog Style of Politics. Without the standard suit-and-tie uniform, female candidates have to find the perfect balance of serious and stylish — something between Sarah Palin's expensive duds and Hillary Clinton's infamous pantsuits — just so people will focus on what they're saying rather than what they're wearing.

Carrie Devorah/WENN.com

(Waist) Size Matters

Is America ready for a fat president? That was the question du jour back in September, when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was considering a run for the GOP nomination. Critics said Christie was too unhealthy to lead the country and that he needed to get his own issues under control before he could take on everyone else’s. Everyday Health readers agreed. In a related poll, 57 percent said obesity was a major concern, especially for a public figure.

Research from the University of Missouri, however, paints a different picture. According to the study, many people view pudgy politicos as more reliable, competent, and inspiring than their slender peers. (Notably, this only applies to men; women in the experiment were judged less favorably when they carried a few extra pounds.)

Still, if history is any indication, bigger isn’t really better. The United States hasn’t had a true fat cat in the White House since the 1909 election of William Howard Taft, who famously got stuck in the presidential bathtub and had to be removed by six men. And unless Christie gets a few million write-in votes before the 2012 election is over, it’ll be at least another four years before we have another.

Money Can't Buy Happiness — or Votes

Mo’ money, mo’ problems? It appears so. According to a study by the National Institute on Money in State Politics, only one in 10 self-financing gubernatorial and congressional candidates actually went on to win an election between 2000 and 2009, despite spending a combined $1 billion on their campaigns. And in presidential races during this same time period, the less wealthy contender was elected to office two out of three times. Al Gore was the only exception, and he at least won the popular vote.

Super-rich gazillionaires aren’t necessarily doomed — most would-be POTUSes are, in fact, very wealthy — but they may have a harder time connecting with voters, especially in a poor economy. Case in point: current GOP hopeful Mitt Romney, who has an estimated net worth of $190 to $250 million but paid a 2010 tax rate of just 13.9 percent, which is well below what most wage-earning Americans pay. Other so-called out-of-touch candidates who paid the price for being wealthy? John McCain, John Kerry, and Martin Van Buren, who lost his place in the White House after William Harrison successfully painted him as a privileged snob.

We Take Candidates at Face Value

We know, we know. You can’t judge a book by its cover. Or can you?

Research shows that voters and even young kids can accurately predict election outcomes simply by looking at candidates’ faces for as little as 35 milliseconds. In one study, by Princeton psychologist Alexander Todorov, PhD, participants glanced quickly at photos of congressional candidates they didn’t recognize and then singled out the men and women among them who appeared most “competent.” Almost 70 percent of the time, the faces they chose were those of the actual winners. In a similar experiment from the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, children between the ages of 5 and 13 were asked to choose one of two French political rivals to captain an imaginary ship with them. More often than not, the kids chose the victor.

So what does the face of a leader look like? According to Todorov, it’s masculine but approachable, with a square jaw, high cheekbones, and large eyes. This could change, however, depending on the state of the union: One study from the University of Stirling in Scotland found that while people preferred a “dominant” face during war, they were partial to an “intelligent” face (softer features, rounder jaw) in times of peace.

Stubble Spells Trouble

Before Herman Cain entered (and then dropped out of) the race this year, when was the last time you saw a bearded or mustachioed candidate for president? Thomas Dewey in 1948? Your U.S. history book in high school? For the last 16 election seasons — and in most of the ones before that — all of the major contenders for office have been clean-shaven. Even the famously hairy Abraham Lincoln kept his face fuzz-free during his first national run.

The reason? Facial hair is seen as something of a political liability, image consultants say, in part because it suggests the wearer has something to hide. It’s also associated (however unfairly) with poor hygiene and unsavory dealings (think Captain Hook and Pancho Villa).

A recent study in the Journal of Marketing Communications, however, found that people actually viewed men as more trustworthy and knowledgeable when they had beards than when they were clean-shaven. The research was designed to test strategies in advertising, but since campaigning is essentially a form of advertising, experts say it could have implications in politics, too. Don’t throw out the razor just yet, though — other surveys say that fresh-faced, well-groomed men are more attractive to women, have more sex, and get better jobs.

Beauty Trumps the Beast

Call it the JFK effect: On Sept. 26, 1960, a young, handsome senator named John F. Kennedy took on then-vice president Richard Nixon in the nation’s first televised presidential debate. Afterward, voters who watched the historic event on television thought Kennedy had won; those who listened on the radio gave Nixon the upper hand.

The point? Looks matter — and, more specifically, good looks matter. According to a study published in the Journal of Public Economics, people tend to favor political candidates they find more attractive. Researchers asked participants to rate several unknown politicians on appearance and then assess their intelligence, competence, trustworthiness, and likeability. They found that the more beautiful a candidate was, the higher he or she scored in other categories as well.

Physical attractiveness is especially important to voters who watch a lot of television but aren’t well versed on the issues. One recent study from MIT found that for every 10-point advantage a male politician had in the looks department, there was a nearly five percent increase in votes from uninformed TV viewers. Maybe we should add an evening wear component to the debates?

This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information: verify here.

Advertising Notice

This Site and third parties who place advertisements on this Site may collect and use information about your visits to this Site and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like to obtain more information about these advertising practices and to make choices about online behavioral advertising, please click here.